Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

morbidbutwhoisnt t1_jaw88yh wrote

Before I read the article I thought that euthanasia sounded like a very soft way to refer to the death penalty.

I think that more places should offer euthanasia as an option, with multiple doctors opinions separate from family influence of course.

So many people suffer for so long without the ability to make a walk end of life decision. The only thing we let them do right now is not take food or water and that takes forever. They end up asking for water and all they will do is dab a sponge on their mouth so it's not so cracked and dry but once you ask to stop being given food and water no matter how much you beg they won't go back on it.

So then nurses have to watch these elderly and/or very sick people die slowly from dehydration and starvation, being begged for sitting to drink and having to deny it.

I think euthanasia is a lot less cruel.

84

Zendofrog t1_jawl8ns wrote

Fucking where does this happen?

18

morbidbutwhoisnt t1_jawqo7z wrote

Do you mean not allowing people to have food and water?

https://deathwithdignity.org/resources/options-to-hasten-death/

You'll see that it says you can start drinking and eating again wherever you want, however if you have signed that you do not want that to happen it will not override what you signed when you were "of sound mind"

17

explodingkitchen t1_jaxj2az wrote

>however if you have signed that you do not want that to happen it will not override what you signed when you were "of sound mind"

That statement is not supported by the material you linked.

16

morbidbutwhoisnt t1_jayptid wrote

It is, it just isn't expressly mentioned. It's like a do not resuscitate.

You can't sign a do not resuscitate and then in the heat of the moment yell "save me!" And them decide to save you against the orders of the DNR. Because when you recover (if you do) or if you are left incapacitated but "alive" you or your family can sue.

What you are reading is saying that you don't have to go into it 100%. You can tell them you want to cease food and water, but if you ask to start back then they can't deny it. That's abuse. If you tell them that you want to cease food and water and you do not want it to be restarted then they cannot start it back.

The idea behind this process is that those who request it are already so far gone that their bodies won't really want it enough for it to be painful, but not everyone is in that position.

3

explodingkitchen t1_jaywf2w wrote

That's a crap analogy since someone who needs resuscitation isn't capable of saying "save me!". It's not possible for there to be any conflict between previously stated intention and present demand.

While there may be individuals who would want a "don't give me food/water, even if I beg for it" clause, you don't have to agree to such a thing to do VSED. And regardless of what you've signed, palliative care should be there to deal with any pain/anxiety/whatever the patient is experiencing during the dying process.

4

morbidbutwhoisnt t1_jayxas1 wrote

  1. people can be conscious during an active heart attack and if they have a DNR you can't take life saving measures

  2. someone can state they "don't want to die" before becoming unconscious in a situation where they are unconscious

Those are some examples of times when someone may be conscious but have a DNR.

Not every state allows for the same level of palliative care.

I also did not say that you had to agree to such things to do a vsed, I however did say that in places without euthanasia that this is the only option. And no matter what you have to admit it's much more cruel not only to the patient but to the care giver

2

Zendofrog t1_jawtnrh wrote

Physically where?

5

morbidbutwhoisnt t1_jawumij wrote

I'm in the US and that can be done anywhere here. I'm sure you can do it in Canada as it's just an advance directive. Probably anywhere that an advance directive is valid

12